PDA

View Full Version : JFK defines "liberal"


Billybob
11-22-2003, 10:36 AM
Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- thr health, thr housing, thr schools, thr jobs, thr civil rights, and thr civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in thr time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for thr children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built thr own future, thr union's future, and thr country's future, brick by brick, block by block, nghborhood by nghborhood, and now in thr children's time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.

In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent forgn policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in thr time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.


________
HERBAL GRINDER (http://www.vaporshop.com/grinders)

Republican
11-22-2003, 03:23 PM
let's not forget his approval rating the day before he was shot was 30% and he failed with the bay of pigs, failed by allowing our missiles to be removed from turkey...if he wasn't shot, he would be seen as another jimmy carter.
________
YAMAHA XT500 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Yamaha_XT500)

Reality
11-23-2003, 07:51 AM
Today the name JFK conjures up visions of a great president who did no wrong and was loved and admired by all. This is pure liberal fallacy and history rewritten for the masses. The fact of the matter is that there were MANY people in this country who couldn't stand the man or his liberal philosophy. His popularity was as much an invention of the news media than anything else. Newsday's recent pieces on the assassination show a grieving America. Certainly many were VERY upset, but this is something that would have occurred no matter who was president at that time. Many Americans grieved not for JFK, but for his widow, children and manner of his death. History has been rewritten in school books and the minds of those too young to remember those times, but some of us can still recall that Kennedy brought us to the brink of WWIII in the short time he was president, only one of several major shortcomings conveniently overlooked and forgotten by those who see him as an icon. History has a way of changing over time, especially when those writing it have a predisposed bias.
________
buy silver surfer (http://vaporizers.net/silver-surfer-vaporizer)

Billybob
11-23-2003, 08:40 AM
That's why he was killed, Reality.
________
Marijuana joint (http://howtorollajoint.net/)

Reality
11-23-2003, 11:32 AM
there are a lot of zealots from both sides of the aisle out there, but the purpose of my post is to enlighten those who are bng mislead by the people who control the forum to rewrite history, ie. the media and the politically correct authors of textbooks.
________
Kawasaki KD125 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Kawasaki_KD125)

Billybob
11-24-2003, 07:56 AM
So, by implication, you yourself must be "enlightened"?

I think it's a good bet that a radical faction of the CIA (possibly James Jesus Angleton) played a role in his assassination. There was so much to politically gain from his death, and so much that radically changed about American forgn policy afterwards.

JFK wanted to end the secretive and corrupt government that had emerged since world war 2, thanks in part to the increasingly paranoid CIA. His goal was also to keep Vietnam from exploding into the tragic and pointless loss of life that it was. But of course, that all ended when he was assisinated. Curious...

Anyway, enough of my own "conspiracy theories".
________
Buy easy vape (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/easy-vape)

Reality
11-24-2003, 02:57 PM
I suggest you read a transcript of an interview with Robert F. Kennedy regarding JFK's involvement with Vietnam. Here is the link: mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vietnam.htm

Here is an excerpt from the interview in case you decide not to read it.

Kennedy:
Yeah, but, you know, he's frequently taken that, those, that line or that position on some of these matters. I don't think that the fact he has an independent view from the executive branch of the government, particularly in South Asia, indicates that the lines aren't straight. I, no, I just, I think every. . . . I, the president felt that the. . . . He had a strong, overwhelming reason for bng in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam.

Martin:
What was the overwhelming reason?

Kennedy:
Just the loss of all of South Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of South Asia would fall.

Martin:
What if it did?

Kennedy:
Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also, it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle . Just, it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, hundred million population. All of these countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists, particularly as we had made such a fuss in the United States both under President senhower and President Kennedy about the preservation of the integrity of Vietnam.

Martin:
There was never any consideration given to pulling out?

Kennedy:
No.

So, the truth is that John F. Kennedy had NO INTENTIONS of pulling out of Vietnam, and actually supported our military efforts there. Indeed, the Democrats under LBJ escalated the war into what it became, something JFK never had the chance to do, but most likely would have done as well. Billybob..... please stop trying to rewrite history.

Billybob
11-24-2003, 03:10 PM
Well, it's quite widely accepted that JFK opposed the escalation of Vietnam. Regardless of whether he thought pulling out was a good idea.

<<Martin:
There was never any consideration given to pulling out?

Kennedy:
No.

Martin:
But the same time, no disposition to go in all . . .

Kennedy:
No . . .

Martin:
. . . in an all out way as we went into Korea. We were trying to avoid a Korea, is that correct?

Kennedy:
Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves. >>

But he did wish to end (or lessen) the CIA's power within the United States government, by ordering that the military take over many of the CIA's functions.


________
Buy volcano vaporizer (http://www.vaporshop.com/volcano-vaporizer.html)

Reality
11-24-2003, 03:12 PM
Here is another link that will "enlighten" you as to Kennedy's role in Vietnam and how you conspiracy theorists keep retelling the same old lies, as if telling them over and over again will somehow make them true.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context1.htm

Reality
11-24-2003, 03:18 PM
One week later, on September 9th, Kennedy was interviewed by Chet Huntley and David Brinkley of NBC. Here is the portion of the interview concerning Vietnam:

Mr. HUNTLEY. Are we likely to reduce our aid to South Viet-Nam now?
The PRESIDENT. I don't think we think that would be helpful at this time. If you reduce your aid, it is possible you could have some effect upon the government structure there. On the other hand, you might have a situation which could bring about a collapse. Strongly in our mind is what happened in the case of China at the end of World War II, where China was lost, a weak government became increasingly unable to control events. We don't want that.

Mr. BRINKLEY. Mr. President, have you had any reason to doubt this so-called "domino theory," that if South Viet-Nam falls, the rest of South Asia will go behind it?

The PRESIDENT. No, I believe it. I believe it. I think that the struggle is close enough. China is so large, looms so high just beyond the frontiers, that if South Viet-Nam went, it would not only give them an improved geographic position for a guerrilla assault on Malaya but would also give the impression that the wave of the future in South Asia was China and the Communists. So I believe it.

[and a little later in the interview]

What I am concerned about is that Americans will get impatient and say, because they don't like events in South Asia or they don't like the Government in Saigon, that we should withdraw. That only makes it easy for the Communists. I think we should stay.

GOLLYGEE BILLYBOB, IF THIS WAS G.W. BUSH TODAY YOU'D BE CALLING HIM A WARMONGER WOULDN'T YOU?

Reality
11-24-2003, 03:33 PM
Quote:Well, it's quite widely accepted that JFK opposed the escalation of Vietnam. Regardless of whether he thought pulling out was a good idea.

Quite widely accepted by who? The liberals who need to rewrite what Kennedy actually did? By the people who subscribe to and promote liberal lies like you do? Even if it is "widely accepted" that JFK opposed escalation, does that make it factual and true? Absolutely NOT. Documented history says otherwise. The above statement by you qualifies as an unsupportable fabrication. I have documented the truth as to what JFK's position regarding Vietnam was. You can spin the facts any way you want to, but the fact of the matter is that you cannot substantiate your statement or back it up. JFK was part and parcel of the Vietnam escalation. STOP TRYING TO REWRITE HISTORY!

Billybob
11-24-2003, 04:35 PM
Wow, you sure think you're a prophet of TRUTH, don't you? Do you EVER doubt your own dogma?

I don't say this as a dodge to avoid debate, but I certainly have never spoken or thought as highly of my own ability to see ALL of reality like you seem to.

Is it completely unthinkable that you MAY be missing some information, or that, in the case of Iraq, perhaps there's some key point you've never come across, or a person you don't know, who has everything to do with the situation?

Your major flaw is your certainty, and your inability to believe other people who may have DIFFERENT views. And don't bother explaining that my opinions just don't meet your criteria, because it's YOUR CRITERIA. Don't you see? In the universe you live, which YOU created, you can find flaw in everyone or everything that doesn't fit into your conception of reality.

So you are re-writing history as well. But actually, I don't think I WAS rewriting history.
________
Ford gt40 picture (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_GT40)

Reality
11-24-2003, 05:27 PM
Quote:Wow, you sure think you're a prophet of TRUTH, don't you? Do you EVER doubt your own dogma?

FACT: I supplied documented truth. That is NOT the definition of "dogma".

Quote: don't say this as a dodge to avoid debate, but I certainly have never spoken or thought as highly of my own ability to see ALL of reality like you seem to.

FACT: You are dodging debate because you were proven wrong and will not refute what I posted.

Quote:Is it completely unthinkable that you MAY be missing some information, or that, in the case of Iraq, perhaps there's some key point you've never come across, or a person you don't know, who has everything to do with the situation?

This thread has nothing to do with Iraq, and you're changing the topic again. If I'm missing anything or you can prove me wrong about JFK, please do so, and not change the subject. Remember Billybob, this is how you got all fouled up with the moniker "Mylelez" (what you referred to as "baggage") when you had to morph yourself into "Billybob".

Quote:Your major flaw is your certainty, and your inability to believe other people who may have DIFFERENT views. And don't bother explaining that my opinions just don't meet your criteria, because it's YOUR CRITERIA. Don't you see? In the universe you live, which YOU created, you can find flaw in everyone or everything that doesn't fit into your conception of reality.

The only certainty here is that you continually post your liberal and biased OPINION as truth. If truth is what you refer to as my "criteria", then I plead guilty. Finding flaws in your thinking and postulating is not hard to do; you're an easy target. While you obviously believe the paranoid conspiracy theories you post here, you need to be reminded once in a while that you have some pretty twisted and false views of reality. As long as you continue to post propaganda here, I will refute what you have to say. That is the purpose of dialogue, isn't it? Or would you prefer everyone agree with you and swallow your line of crap?

I did not rewrite history by documenting the facts about JFK. It was YOU who claimed something false as truth. All I did was call you on it.

Chino
11-24-2003, 08:56 PM
Reality~

Quote:Here is another link that will "enlighten" you as to Kennedy's role in Vietnam...

I thought you Neo Repug Repubs (Neocon Repugnant Republicans) loved first strike, offensive wars against less powerful countries. So shouldn't you be praising Kennedy's role in Vietnam? What gives?? Have you lost your direction here, what's wrong with your Neo Repug Repub bloodlust compass!? Better check it, quick!

Reality
11-25-2003, 05:47 AM
Quote:I thought you Neo Repug Repubs (Neocon Repugnant Republicans) loved first strike, offensive wars against less powerful countries. So shouldn't you be praising Kennedy's role in Vietnam? What gives?? Have you lost your direction here, what's wrong with your Neo Repug Repub bloodlust compass!? Better check it, quick!

You missed the point of my post entirely. The point was that Kennedy was not the peace-loving liberal he is now made out to be by liberal Democrats. Indeed, Kennedy nearly started a nuclear war! The point was that engaging in military action is not a concept unique to Republicans (if my memory serves correctly, most wars were begun under Democratic presidents) and that Kennedy played a role in the escalation of military intervention in Vietnam. The purpose of the post was to correct misinformation posted by Billybob. I, like most Republicans I know, do not "bloodlust" for war any more than you do. Is this another example of a liberal trying to rewrite history?